T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e29,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J AM ES EDWA RD VERNER , P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. ATT ORNEY GENERAL ; ROBER T W I L E Y , W ar den, U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i ary- M ax, Fl or ence , C ol or ado, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1063 ( D . C . N o. 05- Z - 2092) (D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M CKAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pet i t i onerJ ames Edw ar d V erner , a fe der al i nm at e appe ar i ng pr o s e, s eeks t o appea l fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. M r . V ernercl ai m s t hathi s cons entt o be t r ans ferr ed fr om t he C anadi an pr i s on s y s t em t o the U ni t ed St at es pr i s on s y s t em- 2 -

w as i neffect i ve. H e ar gues t he di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed hi s pet i t i on as successi ve, by(1) usurpi ng t he g ov ernm ent’ s burden of p l eading t hat this w as a s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on byi s s ui ng an or dert o s how caus e r atherthan r equi r i ng the governm entt o r es pond, and ( 2) notcons i der i ng the mer i t s of hi s cl ai m s . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed M r . V ernerI FP st atus on appea l bas ed on the abs ence of a re a so n e d , n o n -f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t th e a p p e a l w a s n o t tak e n in g o o d fa ith . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a )( 3 ). M r . V erneri s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen s ervi ng thr ee l i fe s ent ence s form ur der c o n v ictio n s in C a n a d a . In 1 9 9 0 , M r. V e rn e r re q u e ste d a tra n sfe r f ro m C a n a d a to t he U nit ed S t at es. T he m agis t rat e j ud ge w ho han dled M r. V erner ’s request repeat edlyexp l ai ned t o M r. V ernerthat as a res ultof the transfer , he w ou l d lose the p o ssibil ityo f p aro le on o n e o f h is co n v ict ion s. M r. V ern er c o n sen ted. In 1996, t he U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on deni ed M r . V erner ’ s appl i cat i on for par ol e, and thi s cour taff i r m ed. V ernerv. U . S. Par ol e C om m ’ n, 150 F. 3d 1172 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). I n 1997, M r . V ernerfi l ed a § 2241 pe t i t i on chal l engi ng the under l y i ng s ent ence s and hi s cons entt o be tr ans ferr ed. T he di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on and thi s courtaff i r m ed, fi ndi ng thatM r . V erner ’ s cons entt o be t r a n s fe r r e d w a s g i v e n v o l u n t a r i l y . V e rn e rv . R e n o , N o . 9 8 - 1 1 1 9 , 1 9 9 8 WL 7 9 2 0 5 9 , at * 3 (1 0 th C ir. N o v . 3 , 1 9 9 8 ). In th is p e tit io n , M r. V e rn e r o n c e a g a in ar gues t hathi s cons entt o t r ans ferw as i neffect i ve, and r ai s es forthe fi r s tt i m e a- 3 -

cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m thata funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w i l l occuri f thi s courtdoes notcons i derhi s cas e on the mer i t s . T he d istri ct co u rtd ism issed the p eti ti o n as su cc essiv e. S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (a); G e o rg e v . P e rrill, 6 2 F .3 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (a p p ly in g a b u se o f th e w rit p ri n c ip le s to § 2 2 4 1 a c tio n s ). A di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l ydi s m i s s es a § 2241 pet i t i on as s ucce s s i ve i f a fede r al cour thas pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned the val i di tyof the pet i t i oner ’ s det ent i on i n a pr i orpr ocee di ng and no new cl ai m i s r ai s ed, ora new cl ai m i s r ai s ed that cou l d h ave b een rai sed previousl y , and the p et i t i on er fai l s t o d em on strat e cause and pr ej udi ce ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. M cC l es keyv. Z ant , 499 U . S. 467, 483- 85 ( 1991) ; G eor ge, 62 F. 3d at335 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . Pr ovi ded the i nm at e i s gi ven not i ce a nd t he oppor tuni tyt o r es pond ( as occurr ed her e) , the di s t r i ctcourtm ayr ai s e the i s s ue of s ucce s s i venes s s ua s pont e. U ni t ed St at es v. B araj as- D i az, 31 3 F . 3d 12 42 , 12 46 (10t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( dis tri ctcou rtcou l d rai se p ro c e d u ra l b a r su a sp o n te, p ro v id e d in m a te g iv e n n o tice a n d a n o p p o rtu n ityto re s p o n d ). T he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatM r . V erner ’ s pet i t i on w as s ucce s s i ve bec aus e he r ai s ed an i dent i cal cl ai m i n a pr evi ous pet i t i on and the cour taddr es s ed the cl ai m on i t s m er i t s . V erner , 1998 W L 792059, at*3. T o the e x ten t M r. V e rn e r d id n o t p re v io u slyra ise h is c laim th a t d u re ss in v a lid a ted h is cons ent , he has pr es ent ed no r eas on t o j us t i fyhi s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i ti n the pr evi ous- 4 -

a c tio n . R e g a rd les s, a lleg a tio n s o f d u re ss in a fo re ig n p riso n w o u ld n o t su p p o rt a fi ndi ng t hatt he tr ans ferw as i nvol unt ary . See B oy den v. B el l , 631 F. 2d 120, 123 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). M r . V erner , t hough he conc edes he mustbr i ng anycl ai m chal l engi ng the v a lid ityo f

h is c o n v ictio n in a C a n a d ian c o u rt, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 4 4 (1 ), u rg e s u s to cons i derhi s as s ert i on of ac tual i nnocenc e i n ourfundament al m i s carr i age of ju stic e a n a ly sis . B e c a u se M r. V e rn e r d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e v a lid ityo f h is under l y i ng convi ct i on, a funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce i nqui ryi s not appr opr i at e. See Schl up v. D el o, 513 U . S. 298, 320- 21 ( 1995) ( “To ensur e that th e f u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e e x c e p tio n w o u ld re m a in ‘ra re ’ a n d w o u ld onl ybe appl i ed i n t he ‘ extr aor di narycas e, ’ w hi l e atthe s ame t i m e ens ur i ng that the e x ce p ti o n w o u ld ex tend reli ef to tho se w h o w ere tru lyd ese rvin g , this C o u rt e x p lic itly tie d th e m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e e x c e p tio n to th e p e titio n e r's i n n o c e n c e .” ). R egar dl es s , as t he di s t r i ctcourtobs erved, M r . V ernerpr ovi des i ns uffi ci ent s uppor tforhi s cl ai m . T he fa ctt hata C anadi an courtover turned the convi ct i ons o f h is co -de fe n d an ts be ca u se o f p rose cu tori al m isco n d u ct i s n o t eno u g h to su p p o rt a n a c tu a l in n o c e n c e c laim . In a n ye v e n t, th e c o n v ictio n s w e re o v e rtu rn e d in 1992– w el l befor e M r . V erner ’ s fi r s t1997 habea s pet i t i on– and as s uch, thatfac t is no t “ne w . ” S ee S ch lup , 5 1 3 U . S . at 32 4 (req u ir ing a p eti ti o n er to su p p o rt all eg ati o n o f c o n sti tuti o n al error w ith n ew reli ab le ev iden ce ).- 5 -

A ccor di ngl y , w e D E N Y t he mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s and D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge